I had a similar situation, and definitely had anxiety, but I absolutely do not believe that explains everything. I had a temperature of 99.5-100.5 for several months after having "recovered" from covid, and none of my doctors believed "psychogenic fever" was a valid thing.
In my case, I'd been dealing with anxiety my whole life, but it never caused physical symptoms. Then I had covid, felt better for 2 weeks, then suddenly started experiencing low-grade fever, night sweats, fatigue, no appetite inability to sleep for days on end (this was the worst. would feel like I stopped breathing whenever I started drifting off, and it felt like my body would then jump-start itself and violently kick me back awake). None of my doctors knew anything about long covid, and I started to wonder if I was dying of cancer or something. The symptoms were distressing enough to make anxiety a logical response. So, yeah, at some point, anxiety probably created additional symptoms, or made me more distressed by my symptoms, but neither I nor any doctors I've met believe anxiety can cause a fever, at the very least.
There could very well be a non-anxiety effect and I'm not trying to dismiss that.
For me, I've experienced the difficulty sleeping, early morning wakefulness, heart rate, nausea, stomach issues, and sweats as physical symptoms of anxiety. A big/scary event (getting covid, death of family) can make the physical symptoms more apparent.
Not sure about low grade fever, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Again, doesn't mean it's not something else but I think people tend to dismiss anxiety as someone not taking the claims seriously - when to me anxiety symptoms are serious and miserable, they just require different treatment (unfortunately Hypervigilance makes things worse when anxious about symptoms and thinking they're not anxiety related).
I still have a hard time telling the difference between actual infection/physical illness and anxiety personally even knowing all this about myself - it's hard.
"...in 1985 when the Colorado Division of Wildlife tried to eliminate CWD from a research facility by treating the soil with chlorine, removing the treated soil, and applying an additional chlorine treatment before letting the facility remain vacant for more than a year, they were unsuccessful in eliminating CWD from the facility."
There seems to be some kind of species barrier making it difficult for deer prions to infect humans, because people are certainly being exposed to it frequently, especially in areas like the midwest where CWD is rampant. But we're in deep trouble if that ever changes. Imagine people dying of CJD because deer peed in a field somewhere decades ago, the prions bound to the soil, then bound to a seed planted in the soil, then you ate whatever crop happened to be grown there. It'd be inescapable.
What's the risk of contact with bats outdoors? I often go for twilight walks and see them flying from tree to tree. But I sometimes wonder if a rabid one could swoop by, scrape me with its teeth, and I'd never even know. Maybe that's too paranoid...
Your risk grows significantly if you enter their caves etc. Even bat guano is a good source of dangerous pathogens.
If you sleep with your window open, I recommend installation of a screen. Not just against bats, against insects, too. My wife got stung by a hornet when she stepped on it with a bare foot (it was right next to our bed on the floor) and it was a very painful experience. Our next residence is definitely going to include screens.
Data shows that being vaccinated divides your odds of dying and being hospitalized from covid by about 10. There's no evidence I'm aware of showing that the vaccines create additional risk anywhere close to outweighing that benefit.
There is. Because kids (basically) don’t die from COVID. The side effect risk, while small, is material in a risk calculation for them, since their entire risk from the disease is small. At a minimum, mandating it for kids (as is openly stated to be the plan in CA) is unethical.
Even if we completely ignore that some children do in fact die (being rare doesn't stop it being terrible when it happens and worth avoiding), and that even if they don't, suffering while ill is bad: when we are talking about risks of completely unknown side effects, the side effect risk of the vaccine is obviously lower than the side effect risk of COVID itself.
The vaccine is relatively simple thing specifically designed to do one task. While there is always a chance there is something we didn't understand or see coming, the chance of a virus, a hugely complex and mutating thing with broad and varied effects, having some long-term side-effect is far, far higher.
> Even if we completely ignore that some children do in fact die ... the side effect risk of the vaccine is obviously lower than the side effect risk of COVID itself.
> Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and editor in chief of MedPage Today, argues that mandating vaccines for "every living, walking American" is, as of now, not well-supported by science. ... The risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 in kids ages 5 to 17 is 0.3 per million for the week ending July 24, 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We also know that the risk of hospitalization after the second vaccine dose due to myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, is about 50 per million in that same age group.
You elided my qualifier from your quote: "when we are talking about risks of completely unknown side effects"—the argument being made was that we can't possibly know the risks of the vaccine because we can't ever know with certainty until we've tested it for a long time, and therefore we should avoid it. My point is that the virus has far more "unknowns" to it, so that argument sucks.
As to vaccinating children more generally and assessing known risks, there is no simple answer. What are the risk levels for different age groups? What is the damage to kids if they pass COVID onto their parents or grandparents and they die? I'm not saying that we should just blanket give it to everyone, but I don't think that one stat is enough to say don't give it to any child, or that no mandate could be justified.
It's obvious to you because you are following a logical train of thought. These antivax people always do the same nonsense argument. It goes, COVID has risks and vaccines have risks, therefore it's impossible to know which is worse. It's literally the dril drunk driving tweet[1].
I'm not anti-vax, the logical train of thought you are incapable of yourself is based on the very factual reality that COVID presents highly variable risk to people based on their age. This, in combination with the known risks of the vaccine, in combination with the extremely early stage of wide-scale deployment of the vaccine in children, in combination with Hippocratic principles, in combination with risk-adjusted thinking, leads to the conclusions that no, it is not completely obvious if a parent should make an appointment for their 5 year old to get a medicine EUA authorized a week ago.
Besides, if you're so smart, and it's so obvious, why do you think you're smart enough to state that Sweden, a modern country, is objectively wrong for banning mRNA vaccines for children?
In any case, my primary point was that it should be up to parents if they give their kids this vaccine, and when. Not the government mandating it.
I mostly agree with you. I think the nuance that is missing here is that the degree of risk is different.
We know the degree of risk from vaccines is low, both in the short and long term. The side effects harm few people, and are not catastrophic.
With viruses, we know that side effects in the long term are real, and can be catastrophic. It is the reason that girl are vaccinated against HPV - HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer. This is a very big problem down the line, even though HPV itself is mostly asymptomatic.
So, it does not follow that avoiding Covid vaccine for children because the immediate likelihood of death from acute covid is the only issue. We are aware that the long term risk of viral infection can be very great with viruses. Avoiding infection is much better if the alternative is the possibility of cancer.
> So, it does not follow that avoiding Covid vaccine for children because the immediate likelihood of death from acute covid is the only issue.
I never said it was the only issue. But neither is the only choice to give your kids the current approved vaccines ASAP or never give the vaccine to them ever.
Avoiding infection is much better if the alternative is the possibility of cancer. But of course, we don't know or plausibly think something like cancer is a long term risk of a COVID infection in children. Maybe one day we will realize such outcomes happen and then it would become much more sane to rush your kids to get the vaccine that day.
I think it's important to stick to what we know, about this virus, and these vaccines: we know that it is extremely rare for children to be hospitalized from COVID, and we know that it is extremely rare for diagnosed myocarditis. But what we also know is that as time goes on, we learn more. And especially for things where are very new, like using these vaccines have on children, we stand to learn a lot, quickly. So I think it's a bad frame to presume parents are pro- or anti- vax. Hesitancy is sane on this specific issue, and that's not to mean that other positions are insane, but what is insane is to impose this on parents who are hesitant at this present time, until we understand what, exactly, is going on with heart tissue.
Can you point me in the direction of studies comparing side effect risks for young children against COVID-19 risks for children? Presumably there's such a thing that you're basing your opinion on. I would find that useful, given that I have an 8 y/o who is now vaccine-eligible and her mother and I are discussing.
CDC admits that there has been severe cardiac damage to young people from the mRNA vaccines.
This leads to an obvious series of questions: just how dangerous is COVID for children? What mechanism is causing this heart damage? Could heart damage be happening without diagnosis, and manifest later? In a year, will we be able to fix this problem with the vaccines, or have protocols to prevent it? Are the vaccines more likely to cause permanent damage in children, than COVID, as opposed to temporary health problems? Are the non-mRNA vaccines completely de-risked from the proposition from causing permanent harm to children? Will CDC guidance in a year guide parents away from mRNA vaccines and towards different ones? Is there a correlating variable we will discover so we know which specific population of children would get heart damage from this? Etc.
More questions: given this known to manifest in younger people, could it imply that age is inversely correlated with frequency? Will young children be less likely to report or articulate symptoms, even if they have increased risk? Given it seems sex coupled, is there an underlying variable correlated with sex that is a root cause we will soon understand, resulting in a vast risk reduction for parents who will be able to know if their children apply?
People claiming you can know if vaccination is a good idea or not for your kids have primitive mental models: the choice isn't to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but vaccinate now or (maybe) vaccinate later. When something is risk laden on both sides and is a dynamic system, the smart choice may be to wait if the marginal de-risking per unit time is high.
My personal view is that wrt children taking mRNA vaccines, there's basically close to free "money on the table" - wait a few months. If you've avoided COVID until now, its pretty unlikely your kids will catch it, nevermind be unlucky enough to get a severe case, which is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, it could turn out in a few months we identify the root cause of the heart issues of the vaccines, or alternative vaccines become available that de-risk it entirely. In any case, personal views aside, it's incredibly immoral to mandate this for schools, and it wouldn't surprise me if CA does this before we fully understand what is going on.
So that link you sent says there is 12.6 instances per million doses. So that is 0.00126% chance of happening. This article from March mentions around 22 per 100,000 chance from getting COVID. Much larger incidence rate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7988375/
Now obviously might not be the same age ranges or such, but I do know last year the Big-10 almost cancelled it's football season due to myocarditis risk from COVID so clearly it has been an issue for a while. Might need to weigh that in the decision you make for your children. Too many people look for one side and use that to prove their point otherwise know as confirmation bias. I would study the incidence of both sides of this before making the decision. Although my children are less than 5 so they can't get it yet anyway.
First, if this has a mechanism which is damaging heart tissue, the diagnosed cases may just be the ones which are manifesting severely enough to the point of getting to through the entire funnel of a diagnosis. The actual blast radius may be much larger, and only result in problems later in life. Especially for children whose hearts are developing, it is extremely risky to administer a drug which we know has the capacity to damage heart muscle and we do not yet understand why and have a handle on the expected distribution of that damage across the whole population.
Second, the stat you mention on COVID is misleading, because a) it is a broad age group, my concern is primarily in the very young, many of whom are now being vaccinated in the US, and b) it is conditional on a positive COVID test. Many, many young children are contracting COVID and not developing symptoms or are not getting severe enough infections to get through the funnel of being determined to be a positive case. So the incidence rate you mention is effectively a meaningless number if you account for these two elements.
Based on our current understanding, it could very well turn out that the data we have now is consistent with a situation where eg, the vaccine administered to 5-6 year olds is in fact damaging their hearts with a sizable % liklihood, and their risk of having such kinds of permanent damage to their bodies from COVID (across the entire funnel, beginning at a non-infection) is much lower. I'm not sure of the liklihood of this reality, but it's not zero. We just don't know yet.
The abstract from your linked paper seems to indicate the risk is minimal.
>According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, myocarditis/pericarditis rates are ≈12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine among individuals 12 to 39 years of age
That's a 0.0013% chance of getting something that "almost all" patients had resolution of with or without treatment:
>Almost all patients had resolution of symptoms and signs and improvement in diagnostic markers and imaging with or without treatment. Despite rare cases of myocarditis, the benefit-risk assessment for COVID-19 vaccination shows a favorable balance for all age and sex groups; therefore, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ≥12 years of age.
There is one in the Pfizer application for FDA authorization in 5-11 age group, see Table 14, page 34. It is not a direct study, it's an extrapolation based on antigen titers in a 2000 kid 2 months clinical trial, but it's the only one I am aware of.
Don’t mistake relative risk for absolute risk. Not everyone who is vaccinated gets Covid, but everyone vaccinated is at risk of vaccine side effects.
If a 30 year old has a 0.08% chance of hospitalization, the risk drops to 0.008%. But they might stand a 1 in 5 chance of getting infected so now it’s 0.016% to 0.0016%.
But if they get injected with a vaccine, the risk of a rare side effect might be 1 in 100,000 or 0.001% which is pretty similar to Covid.
It’s the same analysis the UK did that caused them to recommend against the AZ vaccine for certain age groups.
You're comparing completely different statistics. The 3% is the infection hospitalization rate; in other words, the odds of being hospitalized once infected. The rates from your source are the total number of people per 100k who are hospitalized for covid in a given week; it does not mean they only have a .05% chance of being hospitalized once infected, it means .05% of the entire age cohort are hospitalized from covid that week.
Nope. Look at the data again. The risk of dying from an infection in the 18-49 age group is 0.06%. The risk of hospitalization from an infection in that age group is 3%; you claimed 0.08% which is wrong by two orders of magnitude.
I think 1 in 5 is very optimistic. Unless you intend to remove yourself from society, you are very likely to catch Sars-Cov-2 in the upcoming years. Probably more than once. It's endemic and easily transmittable.
I'm excited to hear the results of the pill among the vaccinated. Cutting the risk of severe symptoms among high-risk vaccinated people, and the risk of long covid for everyone is very important. The vaccines are great, but not silver bullets themselves.
as someone who definitely had and suffered through long COVID, I would like to know what you think you are accomplishing by making false claims like this.
do you think you're being edgy? what possible work is your ignorant comment doing?
It took me about six months to recover from Covid post infection. I got it in the early weeks of the pandemic; it took from around mid April to October of 2020 to get back to normal. I've felt fine since. I don't know what exactly they're calling long Covid these days, but the parent comment is pretty obviously ignorant.
Like the other guy said, "long everything" exists, and so-called "long Covid" isn't any different than long complications from garden-variety colds and flus.
Attributing special powers specifically to Covid is just attention-seeking behavior.
Long-everything exists, we just don't talk about it. I've had multiple colds that lasted 2-3 months, and one that didn't completely resolve for almost 6 months.
How could I know? My lungs aren't so great, so maybe they did.
Also, the WHO definition of "Long COVID" is
“Post-COVID-19 condition occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually 3 months from the onset of COVID-19 with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.”
That's any symptoms, not necessarily organ damage.
People are pro-vax because they want this pandemic to end! The majority of Americans have taken it and it's safe, I have taken it and feel happy knowing I won't have to worry about getting long covid. Anti-vax people are only extending this pandemic and fail at the most basic reasoning. I mean I can understand people being hesitant when the vaccines were first authorized, but now that most Americans have taken it, the idea someone would still risk COVID over getting vaccinated is insane.
Wanna know what does have high risk for long term side effects? COVID.
What can the United States really do? They produce 15% of global CO2 emissions. China produces 30%, and is building new coal plants every year. Its coal consumption has tripled since 2000. Aside from Japan, Russia, and India, no other single nation produces more than 5% of the total. The entire EU produces 9%.
Even if the U.S. and the EU immediately stopped emitting 100% of their CO2, would it have any real effect on climate change? China would make up the difference within a decade or two. The entire continent of Africa is ready to industrialize, and its population is projected to decuple to 10 billion by 2050.
I don't blame people for being skeptical of the idea that America investing in green energy will save the world. It's a drop in the bucket.
The US and the EU are some of the biggest consumer markets. If they for example implement a carbon price and levy import tariffs for imports from countries who don't this will have a big effect.
That would be more us versus them. China isn't worse than we (Europe and US) when we were "growing up". The fair choice would be giving benefits to wares made with green energy, not taxing wares. China didn't get the planets pollution where it is now. We did.
Yes but the alternatives are much easier for a country to afford, understand and build when at a lower tech level (like China compared to the US when old powerplants were build in China for example).
The difference is that taxing something means less people are likely to buy it and when they do we make money, while giving a tax break make the product more competitive while costing us the income we might have had. One is a carrot, the other is a stick. It might not matter on income in the end but it will help push for greener products while taking the high road.
You could prevent a lot more pollution with the same amount of money if the money goes to low hanging fruits in countries with older power infrastructure than trying to tweak something brand new. You don't need to use extra money, just use it smarter. There're lots of ways to finance this smarter if trade wars and nationalism wasn't the top priorities.
There are multiple view points. The country with the largest current annual total emissions is China with 27-30% and the US with 15% (see 2m10s).
The country that produced the most CO2 in total historically which got us to this point of climate change (see 3m30s), were US first at 25% of historical emissions, and the EU in second at 22%, and China in third with 13% of historical emissions. India, all of Africa, and all of South America each had 3% of historical emissions.
Then there's per capita emissions (see 5m10s of the video).
So which of these three metrics should be used? Or should it be some other metric or a combination?
Also probably worth noting that China seems to have peaked in coal plants. They've built too many already, but hopefully it should be going down now.
For example, the US could start to reduce their emission to the level of the EU on a per-capita basis. A 7% reduction in total emissions is not little. If you look at the population, it's expected that China will pollute ~4 times as much as the US.
You state the United States is producing 15% of global CO2 emissions - but that presumably ignores all the CO2 produced on the behalf of the United States in producing the products we import. Including those imports makes our CO2 emissions jump significantly higher - which is really bad seeing as how the United States has only 5% of the world's population. So even discounting imports the United States has the opportunity to reduce its CO2 emissions by 66%. How we achieve that can be a model for others to follow. I'd much rather be in a position of do as I do rather than do as I say.
The US and EU are the big end customers for Chinese goods - Western economies shipped off the pollution from manufacturing, so it's not as straightforward as "its China's fault"
- Manufacturing in the states/EU where pollutant levels can be regulated is a good idea.
- Reducing consumerism as a culture would be useful.
Both of these go against trends (many in technology). Less consumerism means less stuff which is something wall street and SV are both pushing for. Moving to a service economy has been classified as a higher level than one with manufacturing. In the gamification metrics it would be to go backward.
The trick is to start 30 years ago, when everybody knew that climate change was real and serious. Then the US can join with other countries to implement any of a variety of carbon control measures, such as a carbon tax. With a worldwide consensus, it would be much more difficult for China to grow its carbon production so rapidly (and for Western countries to outsource all of their carbon-producing activities to China).
Of course, that involves not having spent three decades inculcating paranoid conspiracy theories in the American public. Instead, we can move on to stage 5 climate denialism, "Well, it's too late to do anything about it now".
If you look at the history of pollution it isn't until recently that China started being a polluter on par with Europe and the US when we were growing our industry. Most of the pollution on earth hasn't come from China and if we acknowledge this and take our part in cleaning up, instead of pointing fingers and saying "today we are polluting less so you should too", we could for example lower import taxes on items made with green energy and lower export prices on things China need for going green(er).
China are not going to pay for fixing our pollution going back a hundred years. We are or China will just turn a deaf ear on our talk.
China is increasing their pollution. The issue is around leadership. How can the US lead China to lower pollution levels, something they are currently increasing?
The question on how to lead them doesn't point fingers. It doesn't ask China to cleanup any past mess done by others. Bringing this up avoids dealing with the very difficult issue of... how do outside parties lead China to be more environmentally friendly when they are increasingly going in the opposite direction.
Let me ask you this: If in scenario A the US (or EU) uses X billion dollars to lower pollution by tweaking an already high tech industry or in scenario B uses the same amount of money helping China getting their older technologies upgraded, which scenario do you think lowers the pollution the most?
If I could donate money and remove X amount of CO2 pollution from the US or X+10% from China with the same amount I would not care at all about national borders. Pollution doesn't. Nationalism does. Technology transfer for greener technology at a discount would help a lot more than trying to get some newer SUVs on the road in the States.
Btw. stating that China is "increasingly going in the opposite direction" is not fairly stating the situation. China is doing a lot better than most in many areas if you compare apples to apples. The main drive for the increase is the increase of people having access to something akin to what we have (smartphones, cars, etc). That a population being lifted out of poverty is polluting more than earlier isn't a surprise. They pollut more because they need more powerplants, more cars are on the road, etc. Not because the don't try to build efficient powerplants and don't try to tax old dirty cars.
China isn't doing worse than Europe and US when they were "growing up" as China is now. Asking China to do better than we did because we have polluted the earth without helping China out is unfair and China likely (and rightly) won't listen. So to answer your question: The US and the EU can do our part which is to help clean up (even if that help is to help China polute less) instead of pointing fingers or start trade wars. Carrots work a lot better than whips. AFAIK the EU does more carrot than whip which gives me some hope.
Because an enormous swath of its population is dangerous, unfortunately. The only way in recent history the US managed to lower its violent crime rate was by locking up more people via the 1994 crime bill, which is now panned as "racist". America has an underincarceration problem, and is seeing double to triple digit increases in murder over the past year following bail reform and prosecutorial discretion putting more future recidivists into the streets instead of jail.
If recidivism is the issue, then the way the US treats prisons, prisoners, and especially ex-convicts is the source. The entire system is built around punishing people for the rest of their lives, after having placed them in facilities with a social structure that encourages repeated issues.
>The entire system is built around punishing people for the rest of their lives, after having placed them in facilities with a social structure that encourages repeated issues.
The problem is, we're not doing that anymore, and crime is returning to its worst levels in history, as bad as the 70s and 80s. A man on parole for killing his mother just beat an Asian woman half to death in NYC. There's currently a manhunt for a man in Texas who raped a 16 year old, spent a little over two weeks in jail before bailing out some paltry sum, then proceeded to shoot 2-3 people. This is a daily reality.
If you believe the us has a more violent population than anywhere else in the world, have you ever bothered to interrogate as to why that is?
Or could it be the us has an issue with whay and for
How long we allow police and our court systems to punish people? Could it be the us is simply over policed?
No shortage of research on this. I ask you take the time to look into this
Perhaps we’re subject to demoralization and whipped into fear and agitation by our own news media, goaded into street violence, justice warriors fighting law enforcement, our culture more or less in tatters. I doubt all that’s caused by over policing seems like cultural social problems to me. But if you believe that overpolicing is the root problem, the easiest way to reduce policing is not to call them. All it would take is a concerted effort in the high crime areas to boycott the police; fewer crimes reported leads to fewer cops.
Otherwise, politicians are always going to feel obligated to add police to areas where folks are getting robbed, raped, murdered, etc... Seems underreporting of crime, citizens boycotting 911, is the only way forward if the problem is overpolicing. Am I mistaken?
Here in Pennsylvania, numerous rural (read: white) communities have disbanded their local police departments. Lack of tax dollars and, as I like to think, it's stupid to pay for overtime, SUVs and army gear so that police can harass people for traffic violations and drug possession.
The problem now is that these communities don't pay any extra for state police emergency coverage... so they get to have their cake and eat it, too. (That is, they get to whine about how "defund police" is a communist plot while everyone else pays for their emergency coverage... money which is supposed to be spent on road repairs.)
Places without high crime (armed robbery, murder,etc) can decrease policing because those areas don’t have high crime. Those are not the areas where police violence is an issue. So your solution effectively does nothing.
I would argue that police in inner cities are a bit like the drunken reveler looking for their keys under the street light because they can't see anything elsewhere.
Could certainly use a few more detectives poking around Wall Street...
If more police _caused_ more crime to occur you would see it quite clearly in in small wealthy suburban communities where over policing is very real (think about places where the police mostly focus on truant high school kids and rich people with domestic disturbances). Rather, police violence is a problem in dangerous high crime areas like the Oakland Bart station, not in undeniably over policed areas like Beverly Hills. As long as a lot of violent crime is reported in these places, politicians will be obligated to have police there to protect the public. Bart without police won’t fly with anyone. You can defund the cops in Beverly Hills, for sure, but that seems counter productive if your concern is police violence. Private security will just move in a soak up those dollars with even less accountability to the public.
There's a very good, entertaining movie that is great rebuttal to this take. It's called Beverly Hills Cop. give it a watch and then reread what you wrote here lol
America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. The historical reduction in crime started before 1994, so there's not good evidence for a causal connection (controversially, Dubner and Levitt in Freakonomics argued it was Roe v Wade that was largely responsible).
Regardless, any system by which 8 percent of adult black men are in prison clearly has bigger problems. It would be much cheaper to tackle the problem at its source: structural racism and poverty.
>Regardless, any system by which 8 percent of adult black men are in prison clearly has bigger problems
Agreed. Any chance they're committing more crimes? Or over half of all murders?
We can control for poverty, which has been found to have a much weaker correlation with criminality than race. Systemic racism is a meaningless act of circular reasoning, because it seems to be defined only by statistical disparities, which themselves are attributed to systemic racism.
American racism is clearly systemic/institutionalized...
>And according to exoneration data, innocent African American suspects are 7 times more likely to be falsely convicted of murder than innocent white suspects.
"Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely
to be convicted of murder than innocent white people. A major cause of the high number of
black murder exonerations is the high homicide rate in the black community—a tragedy that
kills many African Americans and sends many others to prison. Innocent defendants who
are falsely convicted and exonerated do not contribute to this high homicide rate. They—
like the families of victims who are killed—are deeply harmed by murders committed by
others."
7x more murders per capita, 7x higher rates of false conviction. It's simple scaling. That means the system is being perfectly equitable.
Disagreement with the systemic racist ideology is a feature of white supremacy! How convenient!
Unfortunately, people in cults get brainwashed and don't know it either. Here we have a prime example of how Jamestown and certain 1930s youth programs came into existence. Which color kool-aid are you going with?
Fallacies of elimination are fun...
Try forming an actual argument instead of just labeling everyone you disagree with as a white supremacist. Someone who so freely throws the word racist around, clearly doesn't think it holds much meaning.
- Define 'structural racism' and why it forces blacks to be far more criminal and violent than the rest of the population.
- Can poverty explain, for example, why blacks in Wisconsin commit 2/3 of all violent crime while they are only 7% of the state's population? There are wholly White and Native American cities in Wisconsin that are dirt poor - the poorest - and yet they are not committing insanely high levels of crime.
Criminalizing an underclass isn't a new concept, its been done in many places to many races around the world with varying success.
>why it forces blacks to be far more criminal
I think the fact that UK blacks commit crimes at a far lower rate than US whites throws a wrench in this type of oversimplification of the racial landscape.
Source? It doesn't seem to be true for homicide. The US white rate is consistently between 3-4 per 100k, and the UK black rate is often above 5 per 100k.
Either way, all this proves is that the UK is overall a safer country than the US. But the racial disparities within each country are remarkably similar.
It also points to the fact that a privileged (at least in regards to wealth/opportunity) race in the US commits crimes at the same or higher rate (depending on category) than an underprivileged race in the UK.
We can't remove bias and false criminalization from stats but the contrast between two sister countries is interesting nonetheless.
If the simplified overarching premise is "Blacks are uniquely criminal regardless of circumstance", why am I more likely to be a victim of criminality in a room filled with 1000 white Americans than 1000 black Brits?
Put your life on the line for the community, comrade! And sign away your right to legal recourse should you die as a result. You're on your own! You owe the community your life, and the community owes you nothing!
I think there's a really big difference between being FORCED to get the vaccine, and being reminded that your actions have consequences on other people and not just on yourself. Nobody is saying that you should be required to get vaccinated. So really this is just a straw man that you're burning down.
I'd rather all the people gaslighting the public by saying the vaccines are completely safe, totally worth any risk, "trust the experts", etc - when in reality young people seem to have a better chance of dying from CVT than COVID - move to a deserted island.
If the real argument is "the cure has a better chance of killing you than the disease, but please risk your life for the community", I'd rather people be honest and say that in the first place.
Please link results of the study that supports your statements of mortality among young people. In USA alone more than 10k young people died from COVID so far. JJ vaccine has one potentially linked death after 6 million doses.
